Comments

notpc: I LOVE reading this kind of honesty from dpreview. Please please give us more of this in the future. No more dancing around the obvious middle finger that corporations often point at the consumer (the usually uninformed consumer they reliably manipulate). The fact that the comments below are peppered with whiny protests from the usual corporate buttkissers is absolute proof that you are on the right path. These company line sycophants who argue against their own interests (that of the consumer) have been the plague of these forums for years.

dpr4bb: The kit lens on this lowly DSLR will produce better photos than the compromised zoom lenses on many "high-end" or "enthusiast" compact cameras and at a much better price point. Is it really a surprise that these things sell well?

@marc petzoldThe LX100 lens may go to 24mm but stops short at 70mm. It is all of 2/3 of a stop faster than this kit lens in 35mm equivalent terms and is otherwise nothing special. The DPR review samples are pretty telling. The EX1 is a historical relic at this point. Now let's see you try and find another example. No historical relics, please.Perhaps you're not very familiar with this kit lens from Canon, as it's just a "kit" lens. Have a look at its review at Photozone. Personally, I'm not at all surprised why these cameras sell well. They offer an incredible value proposition at $500. Those who don't get basic matters confused by a couple of "enthusiast" ergonomics bits and a "fast" lens thrown at them can evidently see that.

The kit lens on this lowly DSLR will produce better photos than the compromised zoom lenses on many "high-end" or "enthusiast" compact cameras and at a much better price point. Is it really a surprise that these things sell well?

Marty4650: Just a friendly warning to budget conscious DSLR buyers.... if you are on a very tight budget then you might be better off buying a high end fixed lens camera. Even if it is used, or an older model.

The whole point of interchangeable lenses is "buying more lenses" and most decent lenses cost more than this camera does. If your budget doesn't allow for additional lenses, then why do you need an ILC?

I think ILCs have been oversold. People who don't need them are buying them, and they may never need the ability to swap out lenses. Bottom line.... buy what you need, not what everyone else tells you to buy.

@Marty4650The kit lens on this camera will produce better photos than the compromised zoom lenses on many "high-end" or "enthusiast" compact cameras. And at a lower price point to boot.

I'd love to learn what Nikon marketing/engineering were actually thinking at the time when they came up with this bit of farce. I bet there is a comedic (tragic?) story there. Good to hear that somebody is calling them on it. I bet many a fan (that's short for fanatic) doesn't care, though ;)

Looks like a lot of people are hung up on the word "destroys" in the headline. Well, when a company is confident enough to put a really good lens on a camera with a smaller sensor, thereby risking sales of more high-end models, that is a praise-worthy act and should be called out, which is what the DPR team have done here. Sony didn't go for the weasel games that some manufacturers play in the name of product differentiation, and they deserve some credit. Canon would never ever do this. Just look at the lenses on any of their "enthusiast" compact cameras. I say this as a Canon shooter, by the way. I have never owned a Sony camera.

Many thanks to the DPR team for providing such detailed and informative comparison of lens performance at multiple focal lengths and apertures. This is extremely useful for anyone trying to decide which one of these cameras to buy. I'm not aware of any other review site that provides this type of analysis in such accessible form. Great job! Ignore all the rude and crass comments from butt hurt fanboys and trolls of various colors.

Barry Goyette: I think whats not being answered with all this focus on Dynamic Range and SNR is "does 14 stops of DR produce a photo that LOOKS BETTER than one taken at 12 stops. Sure I get that the Nikon/Sony will let you shoot directly into the sun while you focus on your tulips...but when I look at that shot....I see a very strange looking sky, which is where most of that DR is being utilized. I shot some tests with the 5dsr today in stupidly backlit situations and was able to get very satisfactory results exposing for the highlights and pulling up the shadows. The shadows had a bit of noise in them sure, but at this resolution, who flipping cares...you're never gonna see it won a print shy of 24x36.

But here's the thing, when I maximized these images with their paltry 11.7 stops of DR, frankly...they looked a little fake to me. They looked a little like DPR's tulip photo...(HDR anyone?) My question is this. Would stuffing 2 more stops of DR into that shot make it look any better?

You do what you want with your camera and let others do what they want with theirs.

breivogel: Very poor ergonomics on the G7 in two critical areas. This was so bad that I returned the camera, which I otherwise liked.

The Video button is totally flush with the top surface - it is impossible to tell by feel where it is. They should have at least have put a raised ring around it or made it stick out a bit. The 4-way controller is also very hard to use, as the buttons don't stick out enough either and are hard to actuate. Maybe these work OK with small Japanese hands, but not mine, They would be totally useless if wearing gloves (as in wintertime).

I tried and Olympus OM-D E-M5 II - the difference in the same controls was night and day. The M5 4-way controller much better, and you could locate the video button.

Right, other than shutter shock, gimped dynamic range with the electronic shutter and a few other things, it's "stellar."

JPEGs from ACR seem to have obvious uncorrected chromatic aberration, but the equivalent out-of-camera JPEGs do not have that issue. Is ACR not capable of correcting chromatic aberrations for the lens on this camera?